My experience is that lots of the Fox people have chosen C#. I don't quite know why. Like Java and C/C++, it is nothing like VFP. VB, on the other hand, uses syntax almost totally like VFP.
My only thought is that C# is like Java and C++ and is, therefore, a "real" language. I do agree that there are a few things that C# can do that VB can't, but the opposite is also true. And I can write those things in C# and then subclass them in VB anyway, so I lose nothing by staying with a similar syntax. Or it might just be the "Basic" stigma - it's a beginner language, not a real one.... But this is probably not the forum for a discussion on VB vs. C#. Which is good. And MS is good enough to make it so that, whatever I use, I still get the same IL code and performance, so who cares? Thanks, Fletcher -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions General Account Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:09 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: Current reference for .NET <-> VFP? Fletcher Johnson wrote: > <snipped> Initially, our focus will be with > VB.NET since that is most "Fox-like". Really? That's nice to know. I thought the prevailing attitude from those that left Fox was that C# was the easier/better migration path. Hmmm....thanks for that comment, FJ. [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
